Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has had some fresh, bold ideas during his decades as an athletics administrator. This isn’t one of them.

“Myles Brand had mentioned it. Mark Emmert had mentioned it. Coaches had mentioned it—the media mentioned it,” Delany said, and maybe that last bit was the only piece of evidence necessary to prove this should not be viewed as a revolutionary concept.

Somehow, though, when Delany recently declared his support for increasing the standard NCAA athletic grant-in-aid to cover the full cost of attendance—something Emmert, the new NCAA president, has discussed openly several times—it became wildly controversial.

The “full cost of attendance” is a figure generally calculated by universities and includes not only tuition, housing, books and fees, but also transportation and personal expenses. NCAA scholarships do not include the latter categories, which can run approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per student.

“Obviously, there’s a cost implication. Obviously, there’s a political implication,” Delany told Sporting News. “The NCAA constitution allows for this, but since 1972, when we walked away from the multiple-year grant-in-aid, as well as the $15 month laundry money, the politics of any change has been complicated.”

Part of the reason Delany’s remarks generated such a storm is the media almost immediately twisted the story beyond recognition.

Here’s what the full-cost debate is NOT about:

1. Paying players

“We have never supported, would not support, anything above the cost of education,” Delany said. “We’re not interesting in ‘paying’ anybody.”

Recommended On The Web

2. Preventing scandals

“Not specifically,” Delany said. “It wasn’t in our minds. I’m under no illusions that providing a modest amount in the scholarship—that’s not going to change who people are, what they do, whether it’s individuals or the system.

“Having worked at the NCAA in enforcement and having been to 30 infractions committee hearings, I’ve never, ever bought the idea that human frailty or intentional wrongdoing would be curbed by providing the cost of education. If someone is determined to get an advantage, they’ll do it.”

3. Providing the Big Ten a competitive advantage

The Big Ten cannot do this unilaterally, so any change must be an approved piece of NCAA legislation.

Since Delany first spoke of this, other conference commissioners—among them Mike Slive of the SEC and Dan Beebe of the Big 12—have acknowledged the issue merits further discussion. Britton Banowsky of Conference USA endorsed it.

“Do we move more toward student-athlete welfare and not be so prescriptive about everyone being able to afford everything?” Delany said.

Related onSN

Delany said the Big Ten’s advocacy of the cost-of-attendance scholarship grew from a challenge by Emmert, who is finishing his first year as NCAA president, in advance of a presidential retreat planned for August. “It’s fairly clear that he wants ideas,” Delany said.

All Division I members are not going to be easily led to add costs. Compared to the escalation of coaching salaries and the so called “arms race” in facilities, however, this proposal would be like ordering from the drive-thru at Taco Bell.

The cost-of-attendance grant likely would involve only athletes currently receiving full scholarships in what are termed “head count” sports. At Ohio State, for instance, that would include 145 athletes in football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, women’s gymnastics, women’s tennis and women’s volleyball. A rough estimate of the cost: $600,000, about what OSU might spend on a few assistant football coaches.

The major conferences can afford this, given the handsome television rights fees we’ve seen recently for BCS games, the NCAA Tournament and for conferences including the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Pac-10—and, of course, the Big Ten.

But constantly operating by rules established so the bottom half of Division I can remain “competitive” has kept this extra money away from students who could use it on items such as food and travel home and instead led to bigger weight rooms, snazzier player lounges and wealthier coaches at BCS-level programs.

“It’s not like we don’t have issues, because we do,” Delany said. “But we also look at the fact institutions can afford, or try to afford, at our level the market cost of an athletic director, an assistant coach.”

The NCAA membership can’t regulate investment in those areas without facing legal challenges, but it can stop the move toward the cost-of-attendance scholarship—effectively punishing athletes who deserve better.

“In scores and scores and scores, you have schools wanting to compete in the (NCAA) Tournament, wanting to compete in football, with very modest revenue centers,” Delany said. “They’re not able to pay the bills without assistance—so any additional cost comes right out of the dollars available for academic purposes. That’s where the philosophical difference is. They’re trying to play in a game with people who have a lot more revenue.”

This is not about paying players. It’s about making their lives as college athletes more manageable or comfortable, which seems rational given the demands they face and the contributions they make to their universities.